It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bought a Gun, Got a Letter from the Attorney General

page: 5
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
If anything, the seller of the gun should explain in person, and send a letter out explaining that guns should be kept in a locked safe, away from children and mentally ill family members. Other than that, it isn't nobodys buisness who buys/owns a gun.
edit on 15-4-2013 by Fylgje because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
All the more reason to leave California, my friend. California is a sess pool, now it's a Police State.

Except for the nice weather, why on Earth would you chose to live in such a crap hole?



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyD
reply to post by spyder550
 


It's a not so friendly form letter. Did you get a letter when you bought that sports guy reminding you that just because you can go fast, doesn't mean it's legal? And if an accident occurs due to your reckless driving that you are liable for any damages, and if someone is killed you could be charged with manslaughter. Drunk driving is a serious problem Spyder, and if you are caught driving under the influence your license can be revoked, and you could be fined, imprisoned, or both. Do you need to be reminded of this, or is this stuff you already know?



They do remind people of drunk driving. There are commercials on TV and the radio all the time.

Can someone please point out in the Constitution exactly how this letter is infringing upon any rights?

Does anyone personally know anyone who has had their guns confiscated?



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom

Can someone please point out in the Constitution exactly how this letter is infringing upon any rights?



It's not about that.... it's about the state using words in a form like "you may be prosecuted" and the nature of that kind of wording for a citizen simply wanting to live and protect themselves with a certain right that the "state", be it local, or larger, ... does NOT have the right to stop you from doing.....even if they say they do, they DO NOT. Just because they can point a gun and/or their legal-speak at you and tell you what your rights are and how you should use them, doesn't mean it is their business to do it.

It's bullying, intimidation, call it whatever but it is what it is. And yes they do this kind of thing for a lot of stuff not just this... and it's wrong all around.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by elcapitano75
reply to post by randyvs
 


Or he could just say, it slipped across the border and now some mexican drug lord has his gun.

They'd probably give him a job at homeland security.


IDK, see ya have to be careful. Weapons go'in across the border is reserved for the real snakes in our gov.
You know, Poppy Bush and the Saturday morning gang ! I don't think they'd like any competition.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
So mannny obligations and responsibilities; if its stolen, if a child finds it, if I sell it and it winds up hurting anyone after that...

So I guess I need to make sure the ammo is where I can't get to it, the trigger is locked and the gun stashed in a vault... where it is useless to me for my primary purpose... to defend myself.

Just the way the authorities want it... useless.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DirtyD
 


I bet you feel a bit like this:




The letter is due to your residence in L.A. I live in a smaller county around central California and didn't receive such a letter after my purchase. Although I agree with the idea of it being intimidation and obviously unnecessary, given our current state of affairs, is it truly surprising? You're in the right, don't be shaken from that. Stay sober, vigilant, and ready.
edit on 4/15/2013 by Banananananana because: sp



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr

Just the way the authorities want it... useless.


Effectively.... Tyranny.

But it's ok cause it's for thuh childrensez..... herp.
edit on 15-4-2013 by elcapitano75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
"Additionally, it is a crime to knowingly sell, give or allow possession of a firearm to a person with a known mental disorder. " - Per Letter

This statement of absolutes, is absolutely false. It's not a blanket ban (although Federal language is rather vague as usual), not just yet that is...

Possession of a firearm by the mentally ill is regulated by both state and federal laws.

California-

"A person is barred from possessing, purchasing, receiving, attempting to purchase or receive, or having control or custody of any firearms if the person:

Has been admitted to a facility and is receiving in-patient treatment for a mental illness and the attending mental health professional opines that the patient is a danger to self or others. This prohibition applies even if the person has consented to the treatment, although the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility;

Has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness or has been adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender. This prohibition does not apply, however, if the court of adjudication issues, upon the individual’s release from treatment or at a later date, a certificate stating that the person may possess a firearm without endangering others;

Has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of enumerated violent felonies. A person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity of other crimes is barred from possessing firearms unless a court finds that the person has recovered his or her sanity;

Has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, unless there is a subsequent finding that the person has become competent; Is currently under a court-ordered conservatorship because he or she is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impaired by chronic alcoholism

A person shall not have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, or purchase or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, any firearms whatsoever or any other deadly weapon for a period of six months whenever he or she communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. Licensed psychotherapists are required to immediately report to a local law enforcement agency the identity of a person who has communicated a serious threat of violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims (see § 8105(c))."


So no, just having a mental disorder is not grounds for not having a gun. There's currently more to that, you know being a harm to yourself or another, court ordered treatment, so forth...

It's odd thing to witness really. At the same time they are pushing for gun control, there's been an open public push with punishing the mentally ill at the same time. Despite all the past shooters being treated ( on medications that have known violent/self harm side affect), they always make it seem like the unchecked mentally ill person, along with the guns are the cause...

The misinformation in a letter from your Attorney General just shows what they are trying to do here... Can't see it? Turn on the news after a tragedy occurs, it's gun control and mental health. More background checks to stop the mentally ill... Fine and dandy, except Psychiatry is getting closer and closer to being able to deem most with a mental disorder.

Why will half of the U.S. population have a diagnosable mental disorder?

"Almost 50 percent of Americans (46.4 percent to be exact) will have a diagnosable mental illness in their lifetimes, based on the previous edition, the DSM-IV."

And that number will rise, it does every year. It does with every new edition. Scarey thought eh?

Scarier because anytime you see something happen, people are screaming no it's not the guns, it's the mentally ill. They're just not on that list yet, in due time they will be if Psychiatry/ Big Pharm has anything to do with it. No wonder there's been no Congressional study on SSRIs (psych med) and the correlation with the shootings..

Doesn't take a genius to see this correlation unfolding. There will probably never be a true gun ban/ nor end to the 2nd amendment (for "normal" people), but soon enough the majority of the population will not be able to own a gun because of a mental condition...

The NRA is pushing for it.... In essence, the NRA is pushing for over half of the American population to not have a 2nd amendment.

The NRA wants an ‘active’ mental illness database.

So that quasi-false statement per your attorney general, " it is a crime to knowingly sell, give or allow possession of a firearm to a person with a known mental disorder." Sort of should be the eye opener here... Right?


edit on 15-4-2013 by squidboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DirtyD
 


Store it safely, don't let your kids play with your gun and don't sell it to criminals...These reminders are "intimidation" to you??



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fylgje
If anything, the seller of the gun should explain in person, and send a letter out explaining that guns should be kept in a locked safe, away from children and mentally ill family members. Other than that, it isn't nobodys buisness who buys/owns a gun.
edit on 15-4-2013 by Fylgje because: (no reason given)


Actually I think that if you have a mentally ill person or family member in the household you should be required to also have a secure gun safe or trigger lock etc.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
This is another example of why some call it Kommieforina.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DirtyD
 


It seems like LA County just loves toying with their citizens. This is just the latest example. Don't let them mess with your head. Just put the letter in your favorite refuse receptable or shred the darn thing.

I also realize living in California means subjecting yourself to things most states don't subject their citizenry to. And for those suggesting relocating, it may be a good theory, but the darn place just bleeds people dry. It's tough to save for a full tank of gas, much less a full scale move.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyD
reply to post by seeker1963
 


Confiscation is already well underway in California. California Senate approves $24 million for gun confiscation program

And guess who's paying for this program?



The Senate voted 31-0 to approve an urgency bill that would take the $24 million over three years from a Department of Justice account funded by gun owners who pay a fee when they register their guns with the state.


You can't make this stuff up. Wow.


edit on 14-4-2013 by DirtyD because: (no reason given)


So taking guns from those who are disqualified from owning guns due to criminal convictions or mental illness is a bad thing?

Your own source....
articles.latimes.com...

As for that letter, i'd chalk it up to living in LA County. I live out in the sticks, i didn't get one when i bought my Glock


edit on 15-4-2013 by bg_socalif because: fat fingers on the keyboard.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Store it safely, don't let your kids play with your gun and don't sell it to criminals...These reminders are "intimidation" to you??


Do you think that's the only purpose of this letter, to serve as a safety reminder to protect the public good? Like I said before, I already had to prove knowledgable in the subject at hand, I got those questions right, I also know firing my pistol into the air is not a safe and acceptable form of celebration (yep, that question really was on the test), and I certainly don't need to be reminded of that either. As a lawful citizen, I don't need or want my local government wagging their finger in my face telling me all the new ways in which I can now be prosecuted, it's passive-aggressive.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Store it safely, don't let your kids play with your gun and don't sell it to criminals...These reminders are "intimidation" to you??

The only "safe" place for my gun in order to prevent all that potential harm... is on my hip. In my control all the time. Thats thee only guarantee I can make... other wise, it is not safe, no matter how "safe" you must think it is. Whats intimidating is the threat of prosecution for others purposeful act while my gun is at home... out of my control.

You know how hard it is to get an open carry in california?

Thats the "bear arms" part... swept away.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Actually I think that if you have a mentally ill person or family member in the household you should be required to also have a secure gun safe or trigger lock etc.


Oh yeah? And where do you hide the key?

Secure... thats a lark. The proven thing about murderous intent is that part of the crime is not insane. Anyone with the know how to secure a firearm, ammunition, load it and use it against others with willful intent is not insane, they are determined. Locks (or laws for that matter) don't deter crime.

Neither do good intentions.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   


So taking guns from those who are disqualified from owning guns due to criminal convictions or mental illness is a bad thing?
reply to post by bg_socalif
 


There's a real gray area when it comes to mental illness, it is a label that can be easily and arbitrarily applied to strip one of their rights. Where is the line drawn between same enough to own a gun and too crazy, and who draws that line? It's scary when weapons are being confiscated from those deemed "mentally ill" with no due process. Sure, there's probably a way to petition the state and go before a judge to get your rights back, but then who's got that kind of time and money. It's the catch 22 of future gun control, a sane person has no need for a gun, therefor has no need to buy one, while only a crazy person would want a gun, so is prohibited from doing so.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by elcapitano75
 


Effectively.... Tyranny.

Right. Nowadays the notion of having a gun is criminal. If you are a civilian and have a gun on you, then you are automatically suspect and must be disarmed, detained, whatever.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyD



So taking guns from those who are disqualified from owning guns due to criminal convictions or mental illness is a bad thing?
reply to post by bg_socalif
 


There's a real gray area when it comes to mental illness, it is a label that can be easily and arbitrarily applied to strip one of their rights. Where is the line drawn between same enough to own a gun and too crazy, and who draws that line? It's scary when weapons are being confiscated from those deemed "mentally ill" with no due process. Sure, there's probably a way to petition the state and go before a judge to get your rights back, but then who's got that kind of time and money. It's the catch 22 of future gun control, a sane person has no need for a gun, therefor has no need to buy one, while only a crazy person would want a gun, so is prohibited from doing so.


I do agree it can be a gray area and where is the line drawn. I do agree there should be a due process. Do they draw the line at violent psychosis or bi-polar disorder or depression? Things do need to be thought out more rather than just painting "mental illness" with a nice big wide brush.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join